What's the general consensus about replacing an inactive cache owner's missing cache? I'm not talking about doing a throw-down on a tough hide because you can't find it. I'm referring to a cache that is clearly no longer there (numerous dnf's, a previous finder looking and saying it's not there anymore, etc.).
My main reason for asking is Root Roll-Up, one of Minnesota's 'historic' caches that the CO has neglected to look after for about a year. Others include it's nearby neighbor Tunnel Along The Bike Trail and one from 2002, Bear Cave Hideaway.
Should we just let these early hides die when the CO has left the game? I personally would like to see a previous finder step up and replace these when possible; I think it should be done by someone who has found it, knows what type it was and knows for sure it's gone.
I understand there are instances where the original location is no longer viable, but to let an old cache in a nice spot get archived because a muggle stumbled on it and took it seems like a shame to me. San Francisco's Sounds of the Bay is an example of the community keeping a cache going for the benefit of all. Thoughts?

What's the general consensus about replacing an inactive cache owner's missing cache? I'm not talking about doing a throw-down on a tough hide because you can't find it. I'm referring to a cache that is clearly no longer there (numerous dnf's, a previous finder looking and saying it's not there anymore, etc.).
My main reason for asking is Root Roll-Up, one of Minnesota's 'historic' caches that the CO has neglected to look after for about a year. Others include it's nearby neighbor Tunnel Along The Bike Trail and one from 2002, Bear Cave Hideaway.
Should we just let these early hides die when the CO has left the game? I personally would like to see a previous finder step up and replace these when possible; I think it should be done by someone who has found it, knows what type it was and knows for sure it's gone.
I understand there are instances where the original location is no longer viable, but to let an old cache in a nice spot get archived because a muggle stumbled on it and took it seems like a shame to me. San Francisco's Sounds of the Bay is an example of the community keeping a cache going for the benefit of all. Thoughts?

I have GCF791 on my radar, but have not been down that way. It can be a tough find. jREST, jonsom and I have re-found it, when several could not. Surfer Joe insisted we find the original (He had already started the "time bomb" on it.)

None of this means I'm positive it's still there; I'd like to see it "verified" missing before it's archived.

"Community" maintained geocaches can also have undesired effect. As a matter of stating one's opinion, I am not a fan of community maintained caches just for the sake of keeping a "historic cache" around (my opinion only...nothing more, nothing less).

We had one such cache down here a couple years back that caused a big uproar when a fairly new cacher posted a NA on it...there were 90+ watchers at the time...but none of them (many who claimed to be "taking care of the cache") fixed issues that had posted by finder after finder about damaged container, contents thrown about, off by 100+ feet, soaked log...etc, etc, etc (we had all seen unmaintained caches). After the NA log and the action taken by the Reviewer, said cacher received numerous email attacking him and his actions...all for doing what he thought was the right thing to do...

We have another cache in the area where people are actively trying to contact the owner and adopt the cache...but, that isn't going to well last I heard..._________________You may only be young once...but I will be immature forever!!!

I think if a CO simply drops off and ignores listings they should just be archived and not replaced.
If the original CO takes note and wants the cache back he or she can just place another as a new cache. If not someone else will surely step in and put one there.

I don't believe the container should be simply replaced without the owners permission or knowledge. I know I have replaced some of my own hides after people submitted "seems to be gone" reports only to find now people are posting - signed both logs.

That's another problem of finders rehiding caches in what they feel are better locations so the CO ends up dnfing his own hides.

I think every situation is different and needs to be judged on its own. A blanket policy or philosophy does not work in my geocaching mind.

I started a response to this thread last night but then couldn't figure out what I thought the answer should be. Bart's answer really sums it up though.

I agree with Pear Head (and Bart, I guess ). Every situation is going to be unique. What's the policy on adoption? Do you have to get the owner's permission or do approvers have the ability to reassign caches if the owner doesn't respond within a certain amount of time?_________________Tupperware doesn't belong in the kitchen!

I think every situation is different and needs to be judged on its own. A blanket policy or philosophy does not work in my geocaching mind.

I started a response to this thread last night but then couldn't figure out what I thought the answer should be. Bart's answer really sums it up though.

I agree with Pear Head (and Bart, I guess ). Every situation is going to be unique. What's the policy on adoption? Do you have to get the owner's permission or do approvers reviewers have the ability to reassign caches if the owner doesn't respond within a certain amount of time?

You need to get the owner's permission....Groundspeak's stance is that the cache is the property of the person that originally placed it and therefore they nor the reviewers do not have the authority to give it to someone else._________________You may only be young once...but I will be immature forever!!!

Last edited by Draconisdax on Wed Apr 11, 2012 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total

Every time "forced" adoptions come up on the national forums, the answer is the same: unless the owner initiates the adoption, it can't happen. Reviewers can't do it.

Which is not to say it's impossible... it's a database after all, and it should be possible for someone to get in there and switch owners. But for whatever reason, The Powers That Be have not seen fit to give that power to reviewers.

I suspect that if they started doing it, there would be an immense flood of people requesting to force-adopt caches for completely ridiculous reasons.

As an aside, I always wince when people ask for less vague rules. I like the fact that reviewers can make judgement calls for interpreting the guidelines. I often disagree with their interpretations, but I think the current situation is infinitely better than if everything was explicitly spelled out.

Adding more words to rules rarely makes them clearer.

Last edited by JJnTJ on Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:53 am; edited 1 time in total

One situation where I think replacing a missing cache can be justified is in the case of challenge caches. If I've gone to the trouble of completing the requirements of a challenge, but the cache is no longer there and/or the CO has gone AWOL, I would be eternally grateful to anybody who replaced the final.

Sometimes I think it is just easier to replace one, than to go thru the whole NA process. If I have a container, and I know the original is gone, or I find it in rough shape, I'll replace it. I've even gone after several with the express intent to replace them if I can't find them. It's just plastic after all, and now someone else can enjoy the find._________________"We never seek things for themselves-what we seek is the very seeking of things"-Pascal

Sometimes I think it is just easier to replace one, than to go thru the whole NA process. If I have a container, and I know the original is gone, or I find it in rough shape, I'll replace it. I've even gone after several with the express intent to replace them if I can't find them. It's just plastic after all, and now someone else can enjoy the find.

Generally I am in agreement, assuming I know for a fact that it's gone or destroyed. I would never perform throw downs.. at least as far as you all know